From Reaction to Agency: A 'Subaltern' Response to William Twining's Globalisation and Legal Scholarship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this essay, it is contended that by welcoming a cosmopolitan discipline of law that encompasses 'all levels of social relations and legal orderings' (both dominant and peripheral) as well as by suggesting that the intellectual heritage of Western jurisprudence be adapted 'to the new predicament of global law', William Twining offers a platform to the world’s marginalized legal systems and formations to assert their relevance in the advancement of legal theory. In developing this argument, I will first examine what opportunities exist within Twining’s theorizing to reclaim and de-marginalize non-Western understandings of the law and its social value within the context of pluralism and globalisation. Secondly, I discuss what could be the lessons and implications of his proposals for a globalised legal theory on legal education and scholarship in the less dominant or 'subaltern' legal systems. I also suggest how scholars from subaltern territories could effectively insert their voices in the diversification and pluralization of global legal theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".